Anyone with a Power Meter can test different applications of force around the pedal stroke. Very easy to do. But why would you when the research has been performed and shown the magnitude of performance gains are non-existent.

Even the basis for this thread is non-existent.

The authors you quote at the start of another Frank Day train wreck wrote this in EJAP soon after they published the first study...

Quote:

Contrary to Leirdal and Ettema (2010), we do not find a significant relationship between DC and GE.

Earlier in the paper they write:

Quote:

A reason for the contradicting results of this study and Leirdal and Ettema (2010) may be the type of bicycle–ergometer system that was used.

They then go on to discuss why this might be an issue.

Fergie, if you want to discuss a paper and what it might mean it would seem best to post a link to it and let everyone have a chance to interpret what it might mean to an overall argument rather than just declaring that proof of what you say exists. Thanks for the heads up though. Interesting paper.

You seem to keep forgetting that you're the one touting a product that you sell and are making what many of us think are rather outrageous claims as to the effectiveness of this product. In this case it would seem the burden of proof rests rather squarely on your shoulders.

That said, I'm pleased to see the development of this new power meter and feel that it will make it easier for the masses to study the influence of various pedaling techniques. Sadly for you, I expect that this will quickly show what many of us have long felt to be true

The software that the unit uses to inspect torque with each crank rotation looks a bit pricy for the common man. Perhaps I missed it but I didn't happen to see mentioned that the Icrank software sifts out non-tangential torque and quantifies it so that it can be compared to the tangential torque and used as a measure of effectiveness of pedaling. Seems as if we had a bet running on that which I'd already conceded but may now need to reevaluate.

I am not forgetting anything. From a scientific perspective it is really impossible for me to prove my points because I am seen as biased. Hence, there would be a big waste of my time to try. What I do try to do from a scientific perspective is to support those independent people who wish to look at the issue. It is the best I can do.

And, if this new PM turns out to be "sad for me" then so be it. I and many others though will be completely surprised if that is the case. That is why I am so excited that this data will soon be readily available. Stand by. Many more long threads are sure to be on the horizon if I am correct. If I am wrong we will be a thing of the past. Mark my words, the cycling community is soon to learn that "pedaling technique matters" and it matters big time. Of course, it isn't possible to know what your technique really is unless you can measure it.

BTW, that software price is a mistake. I was blown away when I saw that so I contacted them. The TA analysis software is included with the iCranks. In fact, you can download it from that site without purchasing the cranks now and see it work as it comes with an example file. To use the software users are going to need to get an ANT+ USB stick to put in their computer so they can communicate (or do the same with an iPhone and then transfer the data) but that costs about $40. I still don't have all I need to make my pre-production unit work with the TA software, all I can do is use the Garmin right now. They told me that store error would be corrected soon on the web site.

I don't believe the software separates out tangential and radial forces (TA stands for torque analysis). I suspect they could do that if they wanted to (that may be in the $2,000 version of the software) but that is way to much information for the average consumer IMHO. Look how confusing the radial component of that AXIS cranks is. IMHO it is simply enough for most to look at the top, front, bottom, and back tangential component and compare right and left to see where major weaknesses lie. The iCranks software will give that and more.

You mean to say that you conned Cadel Evans or Poalo Bettini into using a Gimmickcrank but you can't talk a sport science student into doing a some basic testing? Weak!

I didn't talk (or con) either of these riders into using my product. Bettini got on them after we showed the product to Dr. Max Testa when he was still at UC Davis and he had us send 5 pair to Mapei (he was still a team doctor for them at the time) for them to test. One set was give to Bettini. The story is when they asked for them back after awhile he refused to give them back. Not sure how Cadel Evans got on them except it was many years ago and I know he contacted me. I was so effective in making him an idiot regarding pedaling technique that last fall we got a phone call from Taylor Phinney who simply said "Cadel says I need to get on these things". But, what would he know, he has been conned by me hasn't he?

I really have to thank Fergie for the information that led to this post. Sometimes he really does post useful information although it is not clear he realizes it. A few pages back he posted a comment that the group that started this thread had a subsequent paper that contradicted their first finding. I did a little google search and found the paper, the full text available here.

In this paper I found this:

Quote:

Thus, in principle, FE affects GE in a direct manner. A number of studies have demonstrated a moderate to strong relationship between FE and GE (e.g., Zameziati et al. 2006; Candotti et al. 2007).

So, I thought it might be interesting to see what Zameziati et al. and Candotti et. al. did and found.

IE(360 degrees) and IE(180 degrees Asc) were significantly correlated with GE (r = 0.79 and 0.66, respectively) and NE (r = 0.66 and 0.99, respectively). In contrast, IE(180 degrees Desc) was not correlated to GE or to NE. From a mechanical point of view, during the upstroke, the subject was able to reduce the non-propulsive forces applied by an active muscle contraction, contrary to the downstroke phase. As a consequence, the term 'passive phase', which is currently used to characterize the upstroke phase, seems to be obsolete.

In other words, what was done on the backstroke was what was important in determining cycling efficiency. This could explain the 10% cycling efficiency improvement seen in 6 weeks of PowerCranks training seen by Luttrell over the control group. Now wait for it, Fergie will be here soon stating that efficiency is not an important metric when it comes to cycling.

Cyclists produced significantly more effective force and a higher index of pedalling effectiveness at 60 and 75 rev/min and were significantly more economic at all cadences than triathletes. The significant and positive correlation between effective force and economy at all cadences suggests that improvement of the effective force would reflect on economy.

Now we are finding that cadence is also an important part of this equation. I might note that it is significantly easier to unweight on the upstroke when one is at a lower cadence. Now wait for it, Fergie will be here soon stating that efficiency/economy is not an important metric when it comes to cycling.

Anyhow, while Fergie seems to think this is all settle science it does seem as if there is substantial reason one might believe otherwise. Enjoy.

Earlier in the paper they write:
They then go on to discuss why this might be an issue.

Fergie, if you want to discuss a paper and what it might mean it would seem best to post a link to it and let everyone have a chance to interpret what it might mean to an overall argument rather than just declaring that proof of what you say exists. Thanks for the heads up though. Interesting paper.

So nothing to really draw conclusions on, but you do so anyway.

Cool the full paper is online. I don't like just posting abstracts as I like to look at the data and the abstracts usually do a poor job of reporting this.

I would never offer anything as "proof" as any good scientist knows nothing is really proved. Theories are on disproved or myths are busted. Like a 40% improvement from using a Gimmickcrank or a significant benefit from changing crank length.

I am not forgetting anything. From a scientific perspective it is really impossible for me to prove my points because I am seen as biased.

Frank Dodge strikes again. Nothing wrong with sponsoring or conducting your own study as long as it is duly acknowledged.

Quote:

Mark my words, the cycling community is soon to learn that "pedaling technique matters" and it matters big time. Of course, it isn't possible to know what your technique really is unless you can measure it.

Ha ha classic comedy! The thing that matters is the amount of power you can put into the pedals over a specific distance or duration which is more a matter of bioenergetics than force application around the pedal stroke. Keep dreaming. Mark my words people will learn more about their cycling from knowing what power they can apply for a given time than they can from knowing irrelevant details about force application around the pedal stroke.

In this paper I found this: So, I thought it might be interesting to see what Zameziati et al. and Candotti et. al. did and found.

Zameziati (abstract here) found this:In other words, what was done on the backstroke was what was important in determining cycling efficiency. This could explain the 10% cycling efficiency improvement seen in 6 weeks of PowerCranks training seen by Luttrell over the control group. Now wait for it, Fergie will be here soon stating that efficiency is not an important metric when it comes to cycling.

Well it is and it isn't.

Mosely et al found no difference in efficiency between elite and recreational cyclists. But that could be an artefact of the testing as the cadence was controlled and I would contend a lab test is not as accurate measure of cycling fitness as a field test with a power meter. But then harder to measure expired gases in the field.

Quote:

Candotti (abstract and full text available here) found this:Now we are finding that cadence is also an important part of this equation. I might note that it is significantly easier to unweight on the upstroke when one is at a lower cadence. Now wait for it, Fergie will be here soon stating that efficiency/economy is not an important metric when it comes to cycling.

Well not as important as it is to a runner and no surprise that cyclists are more efficient than triathletes as they only focus on becoming a better cyclist. Efficiency is really a true reflection of the specificity principle and illustrates that if you follow the rule of specificity you become more efficient.

The difference between cyclists and triathletes but no difference between elite cyclists and recreational cyclists illustrates that magnitude of effects is important. For some sports efficiency or economy is very important like the big changes Prof Andrew Jones saw in Paula Radcliff over her career with no change in VO2max since she was 18 but cycling less so as experiments designed to improve efficiency (Gimmickcranks, Rotorcranks, Elliptical rings etc) have yet to cause a radical change in the way people ride a bike.

The best thing one can do to improve performance is understand the demands of the sport, test where they are at in relation to them and spend as much time as possible training to meet those demands. Far more data on hand to support that than any data you have presented.

I would never offer anything as "proof" as any good scientist knows nothing is really proved. Theories are on disproved or myths are busted. Like a 40% improvement from using a Gimmickcrank or a significant benefit from changing crank length.

Wow, have you really come around to finally believe that science doesn't prove things to be true but can only disprove things claimed to be true. "Truth" in science only occurs when the hypotheses sustain all attempts to disprove it.

As regards my product, as I have repeatedly stated, it is impossible for me to prove our claims and at least now you admit this to be true. So, now it is up to you and your cronies to disprove them. As you have repeatedly said this should be easy to do as the technology to do so has been available for years. However, let me remind you that the claim of a 40% power improvement involves "exclusive" use for 6-9 months of "normal" training effort by the average but serious cyclist. I would take that as about 6 days a week or 150-230 training sessions. Such claims are not debunked by negative results after 10 training sessions performed 2 days per week, as you seem to believe.

Anyhow, the "disproving" ball is in your court. Let's see what you can do with it.

As you have repeatedly said this should be easy to do as the technology to do so has been available for years. However, let me remind you that the claim of a 40% power improvement involves "exclusive" use for 6-9 months of "normal" training effort by the average but serious cyclist. I would take that as about 6 days a week or 150-230 training sessions. Such claims are not debunked by negative results after 10 training sessions performed 2 days per week, as you seem to believe.

Jeebus! This is why people sneer at you. You are a snake oil salesmen who is too stupid to use lies that are within the realm of possibility. No one has to know much about cycling, training, or anything else to figure out that your claims are not possible. It is like a Ponzi schemer claiming your investment will make 10% a month. You don't have to be Warren Buffet to realize that it cannot possibly be legit; it has to be a scam. Why do you continue to insult everyone's intelligence with these outrageous claims? Is your product so worthless that you need to tell the biggest lie possible to promote it?

__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken